Right, and those outliers are enough to make him win national polls (granted, everything I have read says their polling practices are shoddy).

Still, you forget, the base is not woman-friendly at all. Binders of women. Waste half a billion on women's health.

Considering some people kill the babies in the womb when they learn the gender is female you have to wonder which party does more to help women.

That being said its clear that liberals are often in support of bad policies that do favor females over males (example sports). So I guess if you think "treating people equally" is "not woman-friendly" and "giving bias to women" = 'woman friendly' then you might have a point.

Right, and those outliers are enough to make him win national polls (granted, everything I have read says their polling practices are shoddy).

Still, you forget, the base is not woman-friendly at all. Binders of women. Waste half a billion on women's health.

Yes, those are the same people who voted for Perot. Only 68% of Republicans have a positive view of the Republican Party. Incidentally, about a fifth of Trump's support comes from Democrats. He gets the angry white male crowd, particularly those who think they've been hurt by trade and those who are racist. They have no one else to support from the GOP field. The grassroots favorites are Rubio and Walker (by a large margin). Cruz is the Tea Party darling. Bush is supported by the establishment. The libertarians support Paul (note how Paul lost most of his anti-establishment support to Trump, retaining only the libertarian hardcore). The evangelicals like Cruz, Huckabee, and to a lesser extent, Walker. Silicon Valley probably supports Fiorina. So who does that leave for Trump?

Originally Posted by GGT

Throwing my name around is a lame and tiresome way to avoid answering the real questions, or addressing the real problems.

The problem, according to you, is that we're a democracy. If a substantial portion of Americans support Trump, it's downright stupid to not give him a seat at the debate.

What? It's not like we've hit a better mark for winnowing the field yet. How else do you want to do it? Or is it that you object to Trump getting any attention at all? He uses his money and media presence to buy attention, it's not like it has meaning, anymore than the Kardashians do. And he'll get about as far. You can't actually weed out the ridiculous candidates until the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire, not if they have money and the inclination to waste it this way. Since Trump did this last time, and with the Independents before that, he apparently feels he gets something out of it and maybe he's right. Maybe the profile boost actually generates a profit for his other enterprises.

I'm not convinced that the best way to "winnow" the field is by using early caucus states in the first place. Iowa and New Hampshire aren't very good representatives of the nation as a whole. Neither is Florida, or the Carolinas, or Ohio for that matter.

One good thing Trump has highlighted.....is how fucked up our election processes are, and that our two-party political system isn't working so well in the 21st century.

Considering some people kill the babies in the womb when they learn the gender is female you have to wonder which party does more to help women.

That being said its clear that liberals are often in support of bad policies that do favor females over males (example sports). So I guess if you think "treating people equally" is "not woman-friendly" and "giving bias to women" = 'woman friendly' then you might have a point.

Another dumbdumb post. Just so much facepalm

“Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
— Bill Gates

Yes, those are the same people who voted for Perot. Only 68% of Republicans have a positive view of the Republican Party. Incidentally, about a fifth of Trump's support comes from Democrats. He gets the angry white male crowd, particularly those who think they've been hurt by trade and those who are racist. They have no one else to support from the GOP field. The grassroots favorites are Rubio and Walker (by a large margin). Cruz is the Tea Party darling. Bush is supported by the establishment. The libertarians support Paul (note how Paul lost most of his anti-establishment support to Trump, retaining only the libertarian hardcore). The evangelicals like Cruz, Huckabee, and to a lesser extent, Walker. Silicon Valley probably supports Fiorina. So who does that leave for Trump?

The problem, according to you, is that we're a democracy. If a substantial portion of Americans support Trump, it's downright stupid to not give him a seat at the debate.

No, the "problem" is that our representative democracy has been infected by monied interests (special interest groups, paid lobbyists, powerful industries) to the point that our two-party political process dominates, but isn't working.

I'm not affiliated, or registered, with any political party. That means I can't vote in any closed state primary that makes political party membership paramount. It's crazy to think my vote doesn't matter unless I declare myself a (R) or (D) first.

I'm not convinced that the best way to "winnow" the field is by using early caucus states in the first place. Iowa and New Hampshire aren't very good representatives of the nation as a whole. Neither is Florida, or the Carolinas, or Ohio for that matter.

One good thing Trump has highlighted.....is how fucked up our election processes are, and that our two-party political system isn't working so well in the 21st century.

They don't need to be good representatives of the nation as a whole. No state is a good representative of the nation as a whole. Pennsylvania certainly isn't. But if you can't draw up a decent run in either of those two rather soft states, how are you supposed to do so elsewhere? Anyway, as I have repeatedly tried to explain to you in the past, none of this is actually a working of the US government or its election system. It's an activity by and for political parties, private (albeit quite large) organizations of people around loose collections of political ideas working together to try and collectively get each others views eventually made into public policy.

Our "two party system" isn't a formal system. It's an ad-hoc arrangement. A long-lasting one, but one that has no formal status. If people don't like it, they're free to stop participating and apply themselves to some other route.

Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

They don't need to be good representatives of the nation as a whole. No state is a good representative of the nation as a whole. Pennsylvania certainly isn't. But if you can't draw up a decent run in either of those two rather soft states, how are you supposed to do so elsewhere?

Anyway, as I have repeatedly tried to explain to you in the past, none of this is actually a working of the US government or its election system. It's an activity by and for political parties, private (albeit quite large) organizations of people around loose collections of political ideas working together to try and collectively get each others views eventually made into public policy.

I've repeatedly tried to say the same thing. But when I lament the use of Big Money and its control over the political process, it's no consolation when "compromise" is used as a dirty word.

Our "two party system" isn't a formal system. It's an ad-hoc arrangement. A long-lasting one, but one that has no formal status. If people don't like it, they're free to stop participating and apply themselves to some other route.

Never said he's not a sexist pig. I said attacking a woman doesn't by itself make you a sexist pig.

Two of the four candidates to be Labour party leader are female. Oddly enough they are the two I think would be the least-worst potential leaders Labour are offering but if either of them win then she'd be the only non-male major party leader in England and I'd dislike them. Not because she's female, but because she's Labour. The SNP's new leader is female, the only female major party leader in the UK and I dislike her. Not because she's female but because she's a shit-stirring, extreme, far-left, bandwagon-jumping, flip-flopping, hypocritical Nationalist extremist. Her gender plays no role in it.

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

Throwing my name around is a lame and tiresome way to avoid answering the real questions, or addressing the real problems.

That's really no better than Lewk using a sports analogy to rail against women's rights.

Who is railing against women's rights? The only 'right' I'm railing against is the right to kill babies. And sports isn't an analogy it is an actual fact that men's sports team have been cut due to Title IX.

Never said he's not a sexist pig. I said attacking a woman doesn't by itself make you a sexist pig.

Two of the four candidates to be Labour party leader are female. Oddly enough they are the two I think would be the least-worst potential leaders Labour are offering but if either of them win then she'd be the only non-male major party leader in England and I'd dislike them. Not because she's female, but because she's Labour. The SNP's new leader is female, the only female major party leader in the UK and I dislike her. Not because she's female but because she's a shit-stirring, extreme, far-left, bandwagon-jumping, flip-flopping, hypocritical Nationalist extremist. Her gender plays no role in it.

In the eyes of a liberal if you call a woman a fat pig you're a sexist asshole.

In the eyes of a liberal there is nothing wrong with calling Chris Christie a fat pig you're just stating the truth.

We should die for the things we believe in, but live our lives in the dark self-deceiving.
In the snow, all the world that we knew is ice and so we are cold, dead and gone.
Shine a light till the dark sky is burning, wolves are howling and fortune is turning.
But our hearts and the words that we say are ice, and so we are cold, dead and gone.

Look man, we gotta go with what the majority wants. If the majority of users here want there to be a poll asking if we should convert this thread into a poll asking if it should have been a poll, then that's what we should do. Of course, I'm not really sure if the majority wants that. We should create a poll to find out.

We should die for the things we believe in, but live our lives in the dark self-deceiving.
In the snow, all the world that we knew is ice and so we are cold, dead and gone.
Shine a light till the dark sky is burning, wolves are howling and fortune is turning.
But our hearts and the words that we say are ice, and so we are cold, dead and gone.

We should die for the things we believe in, but live our lives in the dark self-deceiving.
In the snow, all the world that we knew is ice and so we are cold, dead and gone.
Shine a light till the dark sky is burning, wolves are howling and fortune is turning.
But our hearts and the words that we say are ice, and so we are cold, dead and gone.

So we need to have a poll to determine if the thread starter carries most of the vote on whether there should be a poll asking if we should convert this thread into a poll, asking if it should have been a poll.

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

I'll give it to Trump, he hit a home run when he talked about buying politicans, even Hillary. The system is corrupt, but its rare to see someone talk about how they were a part of it.

and huckabee could have done a lot with his comment concerning the military being an object to kill people and break things, if the context wasn't him trying to attack gays serving.

Actually he wasn't, the question was about "allowing transgender" people in the military. I think that Huckabee is right though and in the right context as well. The military can't be a social experiment even if it means restricting people's freedoms in the military. Until such time that relaxing these freedoms are clearly shown not to have any negative impact on troop morale or readiness, that is. But, then again, they didn't have a lot of time to answer.

By the way, a lot of people (24m or so) watched the debate. I would have watched more of it if Fox's website actually allowed me to view it on my PC. (despite me having a cable subscription, it only worked for mobile devices...)